About your Search

20121101
20121130
SHOW
STATION
MSNBCW 16
MSNBC 9
LANGUAGE
English 25
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >>> the surprising resignation of cia general david petraeus. the report is that indicative of an extramarital affair, paula broadwell has not responded to our repeated request for comment. kristen welcker is joining me now. what can you tell us about this breaking story? >> good afternoon, craig. the fbi has opened up an investigation into paula broadwell to see if she had improper access to general petraeus' e-mails or computer files. david petraeus is not under investigation himself and they do not expect their inquiry will result in criminal charges. we have, of course, reached out to paula broadwell. we have not heard back from her. she wrote a biography called "all in." some people describe it as glowing. it's certainly coming under a lot of scrutiny right now. just to give you a lick tick tock of how this unfolded. the white house learned about this on wednesday. general petraeus requested to meet with president obama on thursday. he explained the situation to the president, offered the resignation and president obama said give me 24 hours to think about it and then on friday president obama a
realized it was investigating the director of the cia or the cia director had come within its focus or its scope, i believe at that time they had an absolute obligation to tell the president. not to protect david petraeus but to protect the president. >> for the latest on the fallout, let's check in with pete williams. he's been following this for us. pete, let's talk about the time line here. this happened right before the benghazi hearings. petraeus is supposed to have testified at those hearings on thursday. critics are questioning, why are we hearing about all of this later rather than sooner? >> what the fbi and the justice department say is that in the middle of this investigation -- and you have to remember, this starts out with an allegation that had nothing to do with david petraeus, it was thought. this was a woman in tampa, a volunteer at the joint command down there, who goes to an fbi agent who's a friend of hers and says, i'm getting these weird e-mails that are threatening and intimidating. it looked to her initially like they were coming from more than one person because th
to extremists, and we have learned in the course of this investigation, that there was a covert cia operation operating on those grounds, and perhaps part of the reason they pulled back some of the information was to protect that operation or trying to protect certain assets that may have still been on the ground or to protect the names of libyans working with us which were subsequently released under the ignorance of jason chaffetz and congressman issa. and the real question is security, as susan said, but do we have the adequate assets in libya. we have not been in libya for a long time and why didn't we know more about the fact that this kind of thing was coming and is it because we have not been there and we need more intelligence assets? >> certainly more questions than answers we have so more. and hogan, while all of this is stirring on the hill, we have the fiscal cliff talks going on or supposed to be going on as we enter into the holiday week. congresswoman nancy pelosi made some headlines about this comment about tax hikes for the wealthiest americans. >> would you accept a deal tha
, the woman who was having the affair with cia director david petraeus. what we were being told that the original e-mails, these anonymous e-mails from broadwell to kelley did not initially specifically reference petraeus, it talked about her, kelley's relationship with other generals at the u.s. central command. and southern command, suggesting that she was having an inappropriate relationship with them, that she ought to watch it and cut it out, as described to me from a source. we know that general allen who's now the center of this was the deputy command at central command until 2010. so, by implication, we can assume from the beginning, at least when paula broadwell began sending these e-mails she knew something about the relationship between jill kelley and general allen, whatever that relationship was, and that that was the source -- that that was the trigger initially for the e-mails that led kelley to complain to the fbi. it does suggest at a minimum, that the fbi was aware from the early days of this investigation, not just about the broadwell relationship with petraeu
with general petraeus and leaving the cia. all of that. and the benghazi issues, which have been bubbling up here for weeks. and really all of this brought it to a head, which is getting attention and getting some answers. members of congress tell me they expect to hear and are beginning to hear the briefings. so you have the top people in intelligence who are here to talk privately. these are typically closed door meetings. then we think we will get some readout for the senior member who is will be able to tell us the sense of what they were able to learn without divulging the classified part but give us a sense of where they are in the process. when i mention the frustration, various members of congress in both parties who have been sending in letters asking for specific information, i've been told repeatedly they're not getting the information they want. so these hearings are an important way to try to resolve some of that. even susan rice and what may be her political future if she were to be nominated from the secretary of state position. having that focus on her is also another way of
.s. consulate in benghazi and congressman dutch ruppersberger saying the former cia director made it clear there was terrorist involvement. >> he reinforced the fact that initially, the first 24 hours, he felt at that point or the cia felt at that point that this was a protest as a result of what happened with the film with egypt. he clarified that after more information came in, there was not a protest. >> general petraeus' testimony comes today the morning after cia acting director michael morell and james clapper the director of national int intelligence went before members of congress in two other hearings and hours after attorney general eric holder defended the decision not to bring members of congress into the loop sooner. >> we follow the facts. we do not share outside the justice department, outside the fbi the facts of ongoing investigations. we made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security. >> let's jump right in and bring in our friday morning political power panel. we have jackie kucinich political reporter for "usa
questions in the petraeus scandal like why did the fbi keep investigating the cia director if he committed no crime? and could petraeus have resigned for basically nothing? joining us from minneapolis is former cia officer criminal defense attorney jack rice. good to have you here. this new "washington post"/abc poll finds out that even after he resigned people see general david petraeus in a favorable light. could the president bring him back, nominate him as the next cia director? do you think that's way too far off the map? >> it probably is way too far off the map. realistically, now, you have to look at anybody in his position, anybody at the flagship level if you will. these guys are politicians in the first place. that was before he was director of cia. come in as director, generally speaking you're still a politician. it's hard to bring them back. there is a political cost to it. in fact, there's been some other names that are out there that maybe more likely than what we've seen from the president at this point. >> let's talk act those other possible names, the replacements. we ha
petraeus of the c.i.a. we are hearing new reaction from top officials in washington, d.c. today. nbc news white house correspondent mike viquiera joining me live now. vic, what are we learning today? >> there's a lot of back and forth and a lot of it has to do not only with the shocking incident that came to light late friday afternoon and the fallout on capitol hill. there are some angry members of both the house and senate on the intelligence committee as it relates to the whole benghazi investigation. let's go through the timeline quickly, shall we? >> james clapper, who was nominally the head of, the boss of the collector of central intelligence, until friday, that was david petraeus, learned about this investigation into these emails that were described as harassing emails that were sent from paula broadwell to another woman. he learned about them on election day, on tuesday. on wednesday, he notified the white house. on thursday morning, the national security adviser, tom donovan, made the president aware, general petraeus was here, the former general, retired general, was here on t
down as cia director on friday. multiple government sources tell nbc news that e-mails between petraeus and broadwell were indicative of an extramarital affair. kristen welker is joining me. let's start with the fbi investigation into this biographer paula broadwell. what can you tell us about this at this point? >> the fbi has opened up an investigation to determine whether paula broadwell had access to general petraeus' e-mail. general petraeus is not under investigation and they don't expect their inquiry will result in criminal charges. now, we have reached out to paula broadwell. we haven't heard back from her yet. she is, of course, at the center of this scandal. so who is she? she is a harvard graduate, also went to west point and she wrote this biography that i have here in my hands. it's called "all in," the education of general petraeus. it's a thick book but i want to read a lig sellment. she says, his critics fault him for ambition. i will note that he is driven and goal-orient d. so just one sentence in a very thick book that is now of course coming under a lot of scrutiny.
of cia. how can you say that petraeus is a hero on the one hand but susan rice who is following general petraeus' talking points is not. >> the president has his first press conference coming up in just a couple of hours and as we have been highly aware, the fiscal cliff is certainly going to be a big conversation but can the president get the focus where it needs to be when it comes to the fiscal cliff especially when we have people like paul ryan giving interviews saying he's showing back up in washington, d.c. pretty much the same way he left? >> well, there is clearly a huge division between the two parties on two questions. whether we should raise revenue/how much revenue we should raise, the white house put out a fairly audacious, if not bold number yesterday of 1.6 trillion and the second question which president didn't quite address on friday which i expect to be asked about today, which involves can that amount be done without reverting back to letting the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest expire? i do want to say one quick thing about general petraeus and the investigation. i t
she was told she could say from the c.i.a.? >> that's right. she appears to have followed talking points from the c.i.a., which were wrong. the talking points said that what happened in libya, that terrible tragedy was a spontaneous protest, hked by extremists. the problem was the information was incorrect. it was actually a premeditated terrorist attack. as the c.i.a. now acknowledges. that's an issue, it should be debated and fully discussed. i don't know that it is so terribly disqualifying, the way senators mccain and graham have made it out to be. as to say this woman is not qualified to be secretary of state. that's a very different issue. >> lynn, what do you think? you wrote about the issue and you say that the president, the roots go very deep with rice here. the commitment to rice, is very strong with the president and rice. >> right, and he is going to go to mat for her. they, you know, she was with him when he was running for the senate back in 2005. and her support when he first ran for president meant an awful lot to them. because she came out of the clinton administ
ability to obviously run the cia. i think it may end up sort of torpedoing any notions he had about running for president or something like that. but you know, he is a very popular figure. once sort of the brouhaha around this thing dies down a little bit and people come to terms of the fact that he is a human and it happened, i don't know that it will permanently damage him. he will probably resurface at some point. but i don't think you'll see him as a presidential candidate, which i think a lot of people had thought he might run in one of the two parties. >> how spried were you guys by this resignation? again, as representative king indicated around 2:00, and we heard from other guests a short time ago, men cheating on their wives in washington, d.c. is not a headline. men resigning because they had been caught cheating also somewhat uncommon. what do you think happened here? >> i was surprised. i was surprised not only because this is somebody who is so widely respect aid crotts the political spectrum, someone who is now a republican serving in obama's administration, but also b
the unclassified version of the report she was given by the cia? then that would have been criticized. >> you're unfit because you're imparting secrets. >> exactly. >> rice was able to win over someone, joe lieberman. take a listen. >> i would not feel that her appearances and anything she said on those sunday morning talk shows september 16th would disqualify her for appointment to any other office. >> leishman in the context, he's retiring, he's not going to be around to vote on this. but is he signaling for other democrats basically that she has a clear path if her name does come up for nomination? >> i think that's right. joe lieberman is conservative, a hawk, respected by some senators on foreign policy issues. there may be three republican senators who don't like her, another 97 who have votes, the house members who have been campaigning against her don't have votes. something chip said, it would be weird or odd for this process to be playing out if she is not going to be nominated as secretary of state. chip, it shows i think a real political premise on your part, and i think unfortuna
questions and now we know that the stories were changing. it was mostly the cia changing the story. >> it's for political reasons. they had to answer it. >> they gave the best information that they had at the time. >> they shouldn't have put her on the talk shows. they could have done it from behind the podium. >> imagine if they hadn't talked at all then the story is they wouldn't answer any questions. >> if she were to reveal something more, tip the hand more, they would label her to be unf unfit. >> incompetent. >> i'm not saying -- she is just an arm of the administration. let's make that clear. now if you want to talk about whether she should be nominated for secretary of state or not, this incident should not be the thing that prevents her nomination. >> right. >> if you have a problem with it, that's fine. but it should not be this. >> we agree on that. >> one thing susan brought up, headline politics. msnbc analyst karen finney wrote a piece for "the hill" talking about the potential nomination and the last part is what caught my eye saying the gop's continued focus on attacking t
about what she knew. she had the cia there with her. and for them to come out and kind of double down on this strange strategy, it really makes no sense. really doesn't make them look good. over the week, i watched lindsey graham on the sunday show. and when he compared this to iran contra which was crimes, felonies, as opposed to susan rice who has said she was given bad information she repeated it and, you know, it's -- and to compare these two, it's just really bizarre. >> joe, were there two different lanes being run here? one to maybe discredit susan rice and any potential nomination she might receive to the president's cabinet to replace secretary of state hillary clinton? but then also to make this reference to some type of cover-up happening prior to the reelection? >> well, certainly, they're trying to do both of those things. but in combining them, i think they're weakening any political attack they have. now what they've done is they've made what happened in benghazi a referendum on susan rice, where now when you look at the facts susan has come and explained where -- what
a close friend he screwed up royally. the former cia director wrote a letter last week and revealed his wife did not kick him out of the house and says that marriage will survive. >>> joe biden engaged in an extended shopping spree at grand opening of a new costco store in d.c. walked in flashing his card, allowed cheers and stopped for hugs with shoppers. >>> mitt romney won gq honors. one of the least influential people, listed as number one but according to gq, there's no particular order to the list because, as they say, all zeros are created equally. that's going wrap things up for me. "now" is next.an p-d-p gives you a low $18.50 monthly plan premium... and select generic hypertension drugs available for only a penny... so you can focus on what really matters. call humana at 1-800-808-4003. share "not even close." share "you owe me..." share "just right." the share everything plan. sharable data across 10 devices with unlimited talk and text. get a droid razr m by motorola for $49.99. >>> to the victor go the spoils. t
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)